[NEW PROPOSAL] Introducing the FROG INDEX for fair voting power redistribution in the DAO

With the recent events in Wonderland, after the “Sifu Gate”, an important govenance issue came to light: unfair voting power in the DAO.
The proposal of winding down Wonderland was the evidence of that.
In this specific event the the NO won with 55.11% of the votes vs. 44.89% for the YES (NO/YES % RATIO 1,267:1).
But as demonstrated by @0xVonBismarck 16k people voted NO vs only 3k voted YES (NO/YES RATIO 5.333:1), not reflecting the true willingness of the frogs in a balanced way.

It seems fair that, as Daniele stated, those who invested 10M$ must have a bigger decisional weight compared the one who invested 100$. This because the amount of capital invested is crucial to the project.
On the other side holding the tokens long-term provides stability to the project, therefore being a crucial resource too.

The following proposal aims to calculate the weight of each frog in the DAO differently from how it is done today, with the introduction of the “FROG” INDEX.
The index aims to take into account not only the amount of tokens held in the wallet but also how long those tokens have been held, by putting in the calculation a coefficient directly proportional to the days the tokens have been held.


Let’s make an example:

A whale buys 1000 TIME tokens and holds for 7 days → FROG INDEX = 7000
A LONG-TERM investor has been holding 10 TIME tokens for 70dd → frog index = 700

With no “frog index” (as it is now) the power ratio of the two actor is 100:1
With the new “frog” index the power ratio of the two actor would be 10:1

The ratio still favours capital but also takes into account long-term investors, recognizing the value they provide, in term of stability, to the ecosystem.

Let’s discuss the implementation of this proposal and the calculation of the frog index together, to makes things more fair for all frogs.
Sharing on the discord is highly appreciated :frog: :fist:.


0 voters

Unfortunately their is no such thing as a fair vote. In the real world your politicians are preselected from a pool of preferred or tolerable. Once a generation does a Trump rise and surprise the electorate elite, but thats not a norm thats an abnormality.

Fair vote is those with the biggest stake having the impact comparative to their stake. What we did by beating the ‘minority-majority holders’ (which comprised of 4 wallets and about 20k votes) we did so because the attack came from outside our community. Our community organized and defeated the attack. The attacker did not see incentive in continuing to buy votes and risk being over the backing threshold and risk losing money funding an attempt to liquidate the treasury. When they saw they were getting closer to a breakeven scenario then a profit scenario they retreated. We broke the enemy because our people were willing to keep the protocol alive, so the backing price the enemy defined as the line in the sand to acheive their incentive had no correlation to our community incentive.

Someone will write a fantastic article on this one day because it truly reflects the power of an enthusiastic community. Fair is defined by numbers not definition unfortunately and i hate even writing what i just wrote but its reality. If you want your fair say you need to get people together and make your case and vote enbloc. Focus on that. You yourself may have only a few wmemo, but if you can make your case to people you now could have hundreds of wmemo voting with you.


And yes you are sort of doing this with the frog i dex, but their are things that need to be addressed. Management, pool share, assuring everyone has the same outcome in mine. Etc;

1 Like

I agree with you. Any help in sharing in the DAO to bring this to light would help a lot!

Sure, the DAO clearly needs to work on several points at once. But since of these step will probably be voted, prioritising the voting system is crucial imo.

1 Like

I think this is not fair.
You need to calculate how much you bought in and what was the price at the time of the purchase! Your index makes no sense! Times staken in November was 6! But they were worthing 54k USDT! If you take the time now at 200 USDT they worth nothing less than 1200 USDT

1 Like

Nice point here. Will take that into account. Would you mind writing your comment as a piece to implement in the proposal?

1 Like

I have started offering my opinions more because i saw what was going on as an attempt to liquidate our treasury. This was an economic attack, the attackers target was the treasury, not truth. The “great unveil was not virtuous” the majority of people who came our against Dani and renounced him all knew as well. This wasnt an attempt to right a wrong it was an attack.

I typically dont offer my time on the discords or twitter or any social media because 'well 99.8% people are frankly embeciles and that trait only amplifies when they can speak with no recourse (recourse meaning me staring them in the eyes directly) so i usually dont waste my time. In this instance this project deserved my time because i knew what this was and i wasnt going to let the community get destroyed by a few greedy peopme targeting our treasury.

So, yes i agree 100% with what you are trying to do because had the whales dropped 20k votes on the proposal in 5 min and then 5 min later an enbloc vote of 40k votes came in to counter them, they would have retreated immediately.

I believe we need to rally people together organically in a forum or a social group that will agree to resist hostile proposals together.

Recruit figure out our weight strength far as wmemo totals and agree should certain unfavorable proposals arise that we all vote the same to put down the proposal. The faster we act the faster we can break the proposal.

Yes, use the market price at the time of purchase, otherwise those jumping in now at a low price will have an unfair advantage.

I don’t know honestly what is the best way to counter whales buying voting power but indeed something must be done regarding this. As Dani and you said, can’t give equal vote to 10k holder and 100 holder but it can’t stay as it is… I will let smarter people find what is best but the actual consensus has to change ! Good luck with that proposal

I do like the name, frog index. What you do is just calculating TIME * days. I proposed a system where everyone gets weighted according to a factor/index, call it what you want.

In this I propose a TIME * f(x) where x is time weighted average for the number of days.

Please read here TWA Voting System

1 Like

definitely interesting.

This index can potentially make the bias even stronger. Large wallets with long hold will have way too much power. I suggest the following:

  1. Value of token held is ultimate voting power
  2. Voting power is vested from time of purchase. ie. 20% after 1 month, 40% after 2 month etc
  3. 75% of token holders must vote for proposal to pass.

The last requirement will allow small wallets to veto a proposal by not voting.

1 Like

This can be definily taken into account in the proposal for presenting it in the RFC phase. Good Idea though!


Frog index = Number of invested stablecoins * days of holding.

Wallet size doesn’t represent the amount a person invested.

Also, to promote long term holding: just like in real life you can’t vote until you are 18, here you shouldn’t be able to vote until you hold the tokens for at least a month.

Plus, we can heavily benefit the long term holders, if let’s say you hold more than 6 months, the formula would look like this:

Frog index = Number of invested stablecoins * days of holding * 1.1.

Why should it only be , “invested stable coins”? I invested AVAX. That is not a stable coin, but some coin/token that could be traded for TIME, do I get excluded from a vote?

So if there is an emergency vote whales will win

I meant the amount of government backed currency (USD, EUR, JPY, etc. (or the tokens pegged to them)) you invested should count because of the high fluctuation of the tokens’ prices.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.